Sometimes a barren sex life is not the issue. There are many things that can endanger the quality of your relationship. Boredom, conflicts with In-laws, and finances are among the most common.
BOREDOM:
When boredom strikes, the solution is obvious. Do something different; shake up the routine. If the two of you never go anywhere, plan a weekend getaway. If you do the same things every day, do something else. Take a class, join a club, dye your hair, or make some new friends. Invite a bunch of friends over for a cookout and a round of Scruples or Pictionary. If you don't have a bunch of friends, make some. New experiences of any kind can encourage dialogue and dialogue can foster new information, which then feeds into more curiosity. Cultivate an environment of curiosity. Ask your partner questions you've never asked. This will go a long way in keeping things fresh.
It's possible, also, to be engaged by your life, but simply bored with your partner. This is common when women stop being motivated after they've caught you, and then settle into a position of slugdom. It also happens between work-at-home, retired or disabled lesbians who both spend all their work, play and domestic time in the same space together. Boredom can then be attributed to spending too much time together. It's easy to run out of new things to talk about, because you don't have any separate experiences to share anymore. Remember when you first met? You both had plenty to talk about. That was because you each had your own, individual lives populated by other people and other experiences.
Don't let TV watching become a silent teat you both suckle on. . .press pause or wait for a commercial and then converse about what you've been watching. It's a great way to learn new things about a person. That "shushing" that goes on with some partners I know, makes television a way to ignore your partner, rather than engage her in meaningful dialogue. Better yet, watch only the things you feel you can't live without, and the rest of the time, go find something the two of you can do together. . .or even separately, if it seems that will be more beneficial. Each of you can take a class, or learn pottery, or volunteer at the Women's Shelter, Habitat for Humanity, or elsewhere. Does one of you play a musical instrument or sing or both? Do you have a very friendly pet? If so, visit the local nursing and retirement homes, and brighten someone else's day. Ask your partner if there's anything she has always wanted to do, but hasn't yet, and make a pact that you will pursue those goals if at all possible, together.
After years of joint injury and pain and limitation, a friend of mine was afraid she'd never find anything she could do to keep in shape. She had battled thyroid dis-ease and was still fighting to get the weight off. Her issues had also been about arthritis and several injuries she suffered years before. She had to avoid lifting weight-even if it was her own-like climbing stairs. She suffered great pain and immobility whenever she had to carry heavy things. Recently, she had wanted to try to do something to get some exercise, even if it wasn't much. She planned to play a slow, easy game of racquetball with her equally out-of-shape girlfriend. They were going to just bounce the ball around a little. After about a minute, they were playing hard and fast. She had rediscovered her love for this sport after 20 years of not playing it, and found that it didn't cause her re-injury. Racquetball didn't seem to adversely affect her as those things did. This development gave her back some joy she'd been missing, as she realized she now had a way to maintain a healthy weight and muscle tone.
I never could stand calisthenics, or weight-lifting, or even swimming. And jumping to conclusions never burned many calories. . .but put a racquetball racquet in my hand, and I'm all about slamming that little blue rubber ball. Great way to relieve stress and frustration, too.
In our current society, the obesity rates are skyrocketing. We'd all be wise to get rid of at least some of that if we can, while being proactive about nurturing our relationships at the same time.
So, to spice things up and get some exercise, consider playing racquetball together - it's an inexpensive sport that is both easy to learn, and a great cardio workout. It's also a whole lot of fun.
I know another couple who were suffering from boredom, and also concerned about the food they'd been eating. They built a bunch of wood boxes and then planted a garden in them. Now they have something to share each day, and reap the benefits of healthy, delicious vegetables, plucked fresh from the vine, and they also save money on their grocery bill.
Boredom can be cured. But it requires a little motivation.
IN-LAWS:
If your in-laws are the interfering factor with your domestic or relational bliss, take steps to alleviate the problem. Make a commitment to each other that includes making your relationship more important than the bickering or demanding relatives you share. Once a person has "left the nest," it's not necessary to make life decisions based on pleasing the parents. You have to live in your life, they don't. And your first obligation on a day-to-day basis, should be your partner. There's a balance to be had. It is important to note here, that if your partner's wishes and needs always come before your own, and this is not likely to change, it might be time to consider moving on. Everyone in a committed relationship needs to feel they are at the top of the priority list. If two people can't agree on compromise, or even compromise at all, then they should probably not be together, as this indicates-at the very least-incompatibility. If a partner doesn't find the time or energy to devote to it, then their priorities are not with the partnership.
Often, in lesbian relationships there is a dynamic created that has an awful lot to do with guilt; guilt that they are lesbian, and an innate need to please their biological family by caving in to that pressure.
First, I speak from a position of both personal and shared experience, along with the best scientific data I can find....I'm a dual-hemispheric person--a Whole-Brainer. So useful information, for me, is the type that comes with corroboration.
That said, one of the most effective Dating techniques ever offered, in my opinion, is the 17 Dates Method, developed by Justice Harlow. It's a form of what I call Retro-Dating. It basically states that you should have 17 dates with someone before becoming too intimate. This allows you time to get to know someone in a real way without complicating the situation. In modern society, this viewpoint has fallen by the wayside, and only seems to exist in some dusty photo album brought out on holidays by our grandparents. But our grandparents understood something crucial. It is SMART to get to know someone platonically, before you become intimate with them. Fewer hearts are broken, fewer bank accounts are ravaged, and fewer diseases are transmitted.
Another reason I believe it is BEST to do the 17 dates without having full-on sex, is because sex, and specifically, shared orgasm, can CHANGE EVERYTHING. We are no longer thinking primarily with our logicical minds--which I feel is crucial at the beginning stages. Sex releases certain chemicals in the brain like endorphins, oxytocin, serotonin, and vasopressin, which results in a condition that research has clearly shown is the same as that experienced by those with Obssessive Compulsive Disorder. This means you can no longer think clearly, and are motivated by these chemicals, rather than by your own good sense. The emotional aspects can filter in later, but becoming seriously involved requires an initial period of prudence, caution, and clear-headed discernment...if there are no red flags or deal breakers after that point, it is then relatively "safe" to let yourself go completely and allow those emotional aspects to emerge fully.
If, instead, you give in to complete intimacy (i.e., that which leads to orgasm) then logic, prudence and caution is overridden by the emotions brought on by brain chemicals. Then your choices are based on that, and not on what might be data that would save you from great loss and heartache.
Now, having said this, I also recognize that it is often NEAR IMPOSSIBLE in certain situations, to hold off on that intimate expression. Or at least, that's what most of us seem to believe. While I don't believe sex is dirty, (unless you haven't showered) and I don't buy into that whole religious brainwashing of sex=sin; I do know that there are practical reasons why the introduction of sex too soon, can really cause serious problems later, if your intent is to build a lasting, solid relationship with that person you decided you had to poke.
Specifically, the 17 Dates Method seeks to clarify the inherent problems with local, in-person dating, rather than online pre-development.The online dating experience is another Pandora's Box entirely. And it usually goes hand in hand with the Long Distance Relationship Paradigm, (LDRP)because why would you spend weeks months or years getting to know someone online, when they were nearby and you could do that in person? Some of us forget that Online Dating is meant to move into real dating as soon as possible.
If daters are prudent and disciplined enough to give a relationship time to mature, the most common obstacles can then be avoided.
Any Lesbian who is currently single knows that it's often a great deal less romantic to be unattached than the media would have us believe. Many of us would love to hang out with the kinds of women we see on the L-Word, yet in the Lesbian Community, this is often not an option. Sophisticated, feminine lesbians are simply not the norm, overall. Most of the actresses who play those roles are in fact, heterosexual. I have frequently been chagrined by this. In all of Hollywood, they could not find a cast of feminine, sophisticated lesbians to play those roles? In this case, it seems that art does not imitate life. It warrants consideration.
Are lesbians primarily less feminine than straight women? I suspect the answer to that is a resounding "Yes." Are masculine lesbians a product of brainwashing -- that in romance there must be two opposite roles-one feminine, one masculine? Most Likely. . .
At the risk of being politically incorrect, [*a concept i reject] I must say that I find it disturbing that so many Lesbians feel it necessary to mimic men. A Lesbian, by definition, doesn't want to be with a man and is a woman who loves women, in the romantic sense. In a very real way, then, masculinity in gay women is a contradiction. It is patently unnecessary to become manly in order to be with another woman. The need to be "manly" then, can sometimes be about gender-confusion, and not about being lesbian. This stance may be offensive to some, but indeed, I could say that I am offended by how easily some lesbians dismiss the beauty and power in themselves by diluting it with masculinity.
So often I hear lesbians complaining about being stereotyped by the world at large. My suggestion is that if you don't wish to be a stereotype, don't act like one.
In the novels I write, I portray women as feminine or at least a lipstick lesbian, but rarely as dykes or otherwise manly females (which is, intrinsically, an oxymoron). I have been accused of catering to straight men or merely "selling out" by doing this, and yet, I find this assessment myopic, contradictory and just plain silly. I love women, because they are women. I love the feminine form. I am attracted to the quintessential qualities that make women FEMALE. If I wanted to be with a man, I would be straight. So this whole outrage based on my supposed treason against Sapphic love, strikes me as absurd.
Why do you suppose that most straight women who experiment with lesbianism, pursue gay women who are manly? It's a comfort zone, that's why. They are not straying too terribly far from being with a man.
The most attractive women, to me, are the ones who are androgynous. I use that term loosely, and colloquially, because the actual definition is way more severe and limiting than the context in which I use it. Androgyny, by its original definition, means ambiguous in gender. Genderless, almost. Like the "Pat" character on Saturday Night Live. You can't tell if the person is male or female. The way I mean it is more like a woman who blends, in a harmonious fashion, the traits of both male and female, to create a balanced person. This means the woman looks like a woman, but can hammer a nail, ride a motorcycle, or be assertive, all without losing her essential womanliness.
A great fictional character that exemplifies this would be Xena, the Warrior Princess from television. She was strong, capable, assertive, loving, loyal, always looked fabulous and feminine. Even when she was cutting someone's throat. . .
I desperately want another term to describe strong, feminine lesbians.
HOMOgenized Female. . .hmmm.
Fembian. MMM.
Sapphian.
It occurred to me that epicene meant having the characteristics of both genders, blended. So how about Femepicene? (fem-ep-uh-seen).
So women who are Femepicene are those most likely to get my attention. I can't speak for every other gay woman.
Many lesbians say that their relationships end due to "Lesbian Bed Death"- the lack of sex in the relationship. I contend that Lesbian Bed Death is not the cause, but rather the symptom; and furthermore, I think that it is not exclusive to Lesbians. All types of couples who build a life together experience the plateau of sexual activity. It only becomes a problem if one or both of them are unhappy about it enough to leave the partnership.
If you're no longer being intimate with your partner at all, this indicates that the relationship has grown stale. That's when you have to look deeper and ask some hard questions. Are we just busy right now, and this is temporary? Have we fallen out of love? Has the relationship merely run its course? Have we stopped communicating? If the answers lean toward the relationship needing some attention, then that's all very well and good. But if the desire is gone, this might simply indicate that the relationship has run its course, or that the two of you have evolved in opposite directions.
Since lesbians are both friends and lovers with the same sex, it can be easy to slip into friendship after a while. Remaining a partner in a sexless coupling is, to me, a bad decision. The only exception to this is when both women agree that the dynamic is acceptable, and they wish to stay together, albeit, platonically. However, this situation often leads to some sparks flying with other people, and one or both of the partners then get hurt, and whatever friendship they may have had becomes irrevocably damaged.
Sex can become more infrequent when careers and other obligations suck the extra time out of our lives. It can be a natural and temporary flow in some relationships. Therefore, it may not be that the union is dead, it may just be a little ill.
I know a lesbian couple who are caught up in time constraints, job responsibilities, and the rearing of a teenager, and they rarely find large blocks of time in which to share intimacy. But that doesn't mean their sex life is dead. Instead, it was reinvented in "quickies." They steal moments together, and claim to enjoy them more.
The trick here is that when intimacy ebbs, it requires some effort to get it to flow again. When waning or absent sexual activity is not due to the natural ebb and flow of life and its demands, though, and there doesn't seem to be any way to resuscitate it, I encourage the two parties to move on as amicably as possible.
As an avid student of human nature, I have this tendency to create neologisms and coin phrases to describe human behavior. Since most of my experience lies in the realm of lesbian behavior, they usually apply to that segment of society, but I have found that often, the behaviors are also applicable to heterosexuals as well. Here, I will describe one of the theories I've developed about certain lesbians and a particular type of baggage they bring to relationships: Learned Chaos Syndrome.
Some women have so much going in their lives that they have no time to develop primary romantic relationships, yet they continue to allow that chaos and drama to control their lives. They are often drawn to others who have similar issues. Perhaps it's a need to be needed by a group of other damaged or needy people who won't judge them harshly; perhaps it's a way of filling a void that existed in childhood; maybe it's a series of events that she hasn't been able to control yet. But ultimately, I think it's because they have become so accustomed to chaos, that they remain in it because it's familiar, and easier in the short-term, to deal with something familiar than with something new. Frequently, this pattern manifests in other areas, where she might see chaos where none exists. This leads to creating demons where there are none and this can result in irreconcilable conflicts with those peripheral people in her life.
At other times, these LCS women will be seduced by those who are stable, peaceful and relaxed. This is a reaction to a need to live vicariously through someone else without chaos, and a yearning to have it close enough so that it may somehow heal the chaos in her own life. I've always believed, for instance, that when stable women attract unstable ones, it's more a case of the unstable one seeing something in them they need and want, rather than the stable one making poor choices. It usually takes some time before the challenges in a relationship emerge, so that these discrepancies are obvious, especially if that relationship is strained by little time together.
The question of whether or not these women recognize this Learned Chaos Syndrome is only one we can answer if there is enough data and research on the topic. But largely, I think everyone has the potential to recognize and alter anything about themselves if they so choose--barring organic brain damage, brain injury, or mental illness.
Often, hindsight is how most of us recognize our destructive patterns, as hindsight tends to allow us both distance and clarity. But if a woman is so overloaded with responsibilities and worries and problems to solve at every turn, there is little attention left to assess what the antecedent of her chaos might be. It might be as simple as her tendency to take on more than is possible. Thus the pattern repeats, until something changes, either by volition or in the natural ebb that sometimes appears.
But until these LCS women recognize that they are not going to be free of chaos until they remove it, purposefully, deliberately, and with great discernment, from their lives, they will never truly have those things they seek.
We cannot force someone to make those changes in their level of chaos, so that we can have a balanced, healthy relationship with time to develop ourselves as a couple. That falls under the LCS woman's responsibility. When met with a situation in which moments together have to be stolen instead of made a priority, we are caught in this web of chaos with little hope of escape. It is wise to remember that we first have to please ourselves, otherwise we will resent it when they can't be what we need.
So if someone's chaos prevents them from having time for you, you're better off bowing out and keeping your options open. If you are dealing with someone who exhibits Learned Chaos Syndrome, one thing is certain: You should never allow yourself to be the comma in the sentence of someone's life.
Dating and relationships can be compared to buying clothes...
You go to a place where all the clothes are, and grab a shirt off the rack, hold it up and say, "This is the perfect shirt for me." You pay for it, (sometimes too high a price), take it home, and then when you actually try it on, you realize it doesn't fit at all, binds you in all the wrong places, is the wrong color, or makes you look ridiculous. Then you have to take it back to the store and hope there's a return policy, so you won't be out the money, even if you are out the time spent buying the shirt.
What you should be doing, is first and foremost, not shopping unless you have the money to do so properly; and then shopping at many different stores, in many different neighborhoods. You should pull five or six shirts off the rack, and go directly to the dressing room to try them all on. You should model them in front a mirror, look at them from all angles. You should also never ask the sales person how they look on you, because the sales person has a conflict of interest. You should ask your best friend how you look in them (because you know your best friend will always tell you the truth); thus, you make a decision based on several perspectives, and how it feels to actually have each of them on, and not merely an impulse buy.
This metaphor illustrates the basics of how to seek a romantic partner. The clothes, of course are the potential dates, and the salesperson can represent several things, like the person you're dating--how they choose to represent themselves--which could be a misrepresentation, after all. The shopping at different stores means don't look for your potential partner in one bar, or on one site, or at one event. You have to cast a wide net to increase your chances.
Primarily, you should be willing to take the time to make your decisions sound ones. There are those who are of the school of thought that "analysis is paralysis," meaning, thinking our relationship decisions through is somehow a buzzkill. In my mind, analysis is meant to foster understanding, and if you dismiss, out of hand, your experiences, conflicts, needs, and standards, then you learn nothing. If your intent is to understand the person, understand yourself, and endeavor to avoid doing the same things using the same methods, while expecting different results, this is indeed the definition of stupidity.